Template:Did you know nominations/Rose v Royal College of Physicians

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Rose v Royal College of Physicians

(

)

... that in 1701, the apothecary William Rose was charged with practising physick on a butcher without a licence?[1]

Alt1... that the 18th century Rose case probably contributed to the habit of expecting a medicine upon seeing a doctor? Strangely enough,they were not allowed to charge for the advice they gave, but only for the medicines they made up for the patient. This limitation, which lasted for many years, was probably the cause of that habitual expectatian of medicine which has been ingrained in the English people.[2]

Alt2...that the 18th century Rose case destroyed the legal monopoly of the Royal College of Physicians over medical practice? the Rose case therefore, importantly, reversed the growing legal authority of the College of Physicians,[3]

Reviewed: Arlene Hirschfeld

Created by Whispyhistory (talk), Philafrenzy (talk), and Thryduulf (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 20:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC).

Reviewing
Article is long enough, new enough and no copyvio on Earwig.
QPQ done
Citations are appropriate and from reliable sources.
For the hooks I don't think Alt 2 is entirely accurate, Alt 1 is based on speculation so I would go with the original, which is clearly cited.

Overall. This is a detailed article giving a clear account of a complicated and controversial legal case.
I would suggest the following:
1st sentence should be changed to clearly show the parties on either side of the case eg '...between the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and William Rose, a Liveryman of the Society of Apothecaries. Rose had treated a John Seale, who complained about this treatment to the RCP, who brought a successful court action against Rose in 1703. The Society of Apothecaries and Rose successfully appealed against this judgement in 1704 and this effectively ended..."
Last sentence of into - suggest delete "...and the foundation of General Practice in England." That is debatable and a bold statement like that should be expanded later in article (see below).
In Final Verdict add 'some have argued' before 'the foundation of General Practice in England.' Perhaps add a sentence or two to support the claim.
Not sure if it's appropriate to head the infobox with the arms of the Apothecaries. Of course it was an important case for them , but the article is entitled 'Rose v RCP' so it is confusing and might imply bias. Best removed.

In short a welcome article on an important case.Papamac (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't think of a better reviewer, thanks @Iainmacintyre:. I'll work on above suggestions. The Society were the successful party, hence their image, but I'll look into it. I'll ping when done. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iainmacintyre:. Looked at a few cases which have crown coat arms as image. For image...How is this [4] from legislation/testcases? Whispyhistory (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory:Yes, that seems a more appropriate image as the article is about the court case. I see it is current to 1702-07 making it all the more relevant. Papamac (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the coat of arms of England is appropriate unless the article is about an act of Parliament or a point of constitutional law. This is simply a civil dispute. What about the contemporary coat of arms of the RCP alongside the coat of the Apothecaries? I don't think we should use the Apothecaries solely since they were not even an original party to the case. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy:. Both sounds good. I don't know how to do that. Can you help? In meant time, I'll remove image. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I stitched them together, the reverse of separating Siamese twins. They are both old out of copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou...I'm reading the hook. Does it sound like the butcher doesn't have a licence? Whispyhistory (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes "illegally practicing physick on a butcher"? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: A very good article further improved by those tweaks so good to go. Papamac (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)